Barack Obama or John McCain

[Len Colby]

All,

Here is a link to the complete text of the bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Craig,

Please cite the portions that will mandate that the US spend 0.7 % of its GDP, give the money to the UN or make the US subservient to that body.

Len

Here you go Len. How did you miss it?

Craig I saw that but I don’t see it mandating what you and the rightwing nuts you are citing seem to think it does. The Millennium Development Goals are mention 3 times in the quoted section

It is the policy of the United States to promote…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

By saying “it is the policy of the United States to promote” one specific goal would seem to indicate it is not necessarily its “policy to promote” all of the others. Even if you would argue that the 0.7% is inherent in that (which I don’t think is the case) “policy to promote” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

EC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State…shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Basically ditto above it focuses on a different goal no mention is made of the 0.7% of GDP goal and even if it were “implement(ing) a comprehensive strategy to further… objective of promoting…the achievement of [something]” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

Nothing here about anybody being obliged to do anything.

Len do you understand the concept of "weasle words" ? The statements in the bill are vague, and for a reason. Once a commitment is made to follow this UN doctrine. what in this bill forbids following the others?

Exactly Craig the language is vague thus it doesn’t really mandate anything let alone that the US commits 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid. It’s vague because it is merely setting goals.

The way I read it, it calls on the President via the State Dept etc to study ways to meet those goals. Once he (or she) reaches some sort of conclusion and draws up a plan presumably additional bills would be proposed to carry them our and/or money would be drawn from existing programs. It does really oblige anybody to do anything concrete it says the POTUS “shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to [blah, blah blah]”. It’s the kind of thing a president could ignore or pay lip service to if so inclined

You started off claming that this would oblige the USG to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid, now you’ve moved the goal posts and want me to disprove the notion that the if the bill passed it might eventually be use to justify that being done. Since you seem to be admitting your original theory was incorrect the debate is basically over. However I don’t buy your new theory either, both houses of congress would have to pass additional bills authorizing such spending (ain’t gonna happen) and the president sign it (ain’t gonna happen if McCain wins) or both houses over ride a veto (super ain’t gonna happen).

Perhaps you should take up your distaste for the US committing itself to goals set by he UN in general and MDG in particular with your man Bush he and his predecessors (or perhaps their representatives) signed understandings to that effect.

PS this my reply to both your posts

[John Simkin]

The latest polls show that in an election between McCain and Clinton would result in a Republican victory. However, the polls show that Obama clearly beats McCain in an election. It seems to me that the Democrats cannot afford Clinton winning.

John-

I wouldn't get too exdited about reading tea leaves and polls 9 months in advance of the election.

4 months ago, Rudy Giuliani and HRC were the presumptive nominees.

There will be much more scandals, media buzz, meltdowns and gnashing of teeth before the election in November.

That is of course true but Democratic voters have to make their decision now, not in November. That is why I expect them to go with Obama rather than Clinton. Obama is aware that only he can really represent change. McCain is very much part of the old party machine. Anything that comes out about his involvement with dubious financial backers will hurt him.

[Christopher Hall]

The latest polls show that in an election between McCain and Clinton would result in a Republican victory. However, the polls show that Obama clearly beats McCain in an election. It seems to me that the Democrats cannot afford Clinton winning.

John-

I wouldn't get too exdited about reading tea leaves and polls 9 months in advance of the election.

4 months ago, Rudy Giuliani and HRC were the presumptive nominees.

There will be much more scandals, media buzz, meltdowns and gnashing of teeth before the election in November.

That is of course true but Democratic voters have to make their decision now, not in November. That is why I expect them to go with Obama rather than Clinton. Obama is aware that only he can really represent change. McCain is very much part of the old party machine. Anything that comes out about his involvement with dubious financial backers will hurt him.

I agree completely.

McCain seems to personify, along with HRC, the entrenched political machinery that most Americans find disturbing.

I disagree with many of Obama's positions, but he appears to be completely uncorrupted by the system.

I think that his lack of experience in D. C., that HRC likes to point out, is a selling point.

He will soon have a lot of lobbyists with money chasing him around.

I hope that he maintains his integrity.

The media also seem to be remiss in failing to report on his intelligence.

He was editor or editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review.

And, upon graduation, he took a pass on the big bucks and joined a Chicago civil rights law firm.

Couple those qualities with his oratory skills and genuine likeability, and you have quite a candidate.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Democratic voters have to make their decision now, not in November. That is why I expect them to go with Obama rather than Clinton.

It may be premature to assume that Hillary has a "lock" on Hispanic vote in Texas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddW_6uPwaa0

[Craig Lamson]

Exactly Craig the language is vague thus it doesn’t really mandate anything let alone that the US commits 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid. It’s vague because it is merely setting goals.

It’s the vagueness that’s the problem, and given the vagueness the best we can do to understand the implications of the bill is to look at the planks its sets forth. In the case of this bill the major plank is the MDG. The bill references these in two ways. Firstly in the statements section it references our pledge to meet ALL of the MDG, not just part of them. Then it calls for direct action on one part, the poverty section. You need to add it all up to see where this could take us, and the points I’ve made all stand to happen.

As an interesting side note one only needs to look at the Global Poverty Act of 2005 (where this abomination was spawned) to see the glaring differences.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3605

Both propose the same result, but the 2007 version calls directly for the MGD poverty goal and states in very clear language that we have pledged to meet ALL of the MDG goals.

What is a main planks of the MDG? .07% spending. And UN control.

That’s a pretty clear mandate (considering how fuzzy this bill is).

The way I read it, it calls on the President via the State Dept etc to study ways to meet those goals. Once he (or she) reaches some sort of conclusion and draws up a plan presumably additional bills would be proposed to carry them our and/or money would be drawn from existing programs. It does really oblige anybody to do anything concrete it says the POTUS “shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to [blah, blah blah]”. It’s the kind of thing a president could ignore or pay lip service to if so inclined

No, if passed it becomes a LAW and will remain law unless challenged in court.

You started off claming that this would oblige the USG to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid, now you’ve moved the goal posts and want me to disprove the notion that the if the bill passed it might eventually be use to justify that being done. Since you seem to be admitting your original theory was incorrect the debate is basically over. However I don’t buy your new theory either, both houses of congress would have to pass additional bills authorizing such spending (ain’t gonna happen) and the president sign it (ain’t gonna happen if McCain wins) or both houses over ride a veto (super ain’t gonna happen).

Here are my exact words:

“Why is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars…”

I’ve not moved the goalposts. The bill provides direct linkage to the UN, and states we must give others a say in how we spend the money. All of that is directly supported in the bill. The only area of contention is the spending and that’s why we need to look closely to find the hidden meanings. And we find it here:

(10) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

And that brings us to the bigger question of WHY? We already have this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...01----000-.html

It remains to bee seen if this will become law. That’s not the problem.

It appears the debate is not over.

Perhaps you should take up your distaste for the US committing itself to goals set by he UN in general and MDG in particular with your man Bush he and his predecessors (or perhaps their representatives) signed understandings to that effect.

PS this my reply to both your posts

My distaste for many things Bush are well known. This is but one of them.

[Len Colby]

Craig are implying that I miss quoted you? The figure of “800 BILLION dollars” was based on the presumption that 0.7% of GDP would be spent. Where exactly does the bill commit the US to try to reach any of the goals other than “reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” let alone “all” of them?

The bill it wouldn’t really mandate much of anything concrete even if it becomes “law of the land” because as we both agree its language is vague. Thus supporting legislation would have to be passed before a price tag could be put on it. IMO the odds of a bill actually mandating spending “800 BILLION dollars” are about as likely as John Gravel getting elected president.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig are implying that I miss quoted you? The figure of “800 BILLION dollars” was based on the presumption that 0.7% of GDP would be spent. Where exactly does the bill commit the US to try to reach any of the goals other than “reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” let alone “all” of them?

The bill it wouldn’t really mandate much of anything concrete even if it becomes “law of the land” because as we both agree its language is vague. Thus supporting legislation would have to be passed before a price tag could be put on it. IMO the odds of a bill actually mandating spending “800 BILLION dollars” are about as likely as John Gravel getting elected president.

Well actually the figure of 800 billion was simply my estimate. It was rounded down from the .07% calculation.

We are going to need to agree to disagree here Len. The bill is vague and links directly to to the entire goal set of MDG. You decide. I have.

[Michael Hogan]

The UK is very impressed with Obama. It is great to have a US leader who is articulate and clearly intelligent. we are also hopeful that it will address the important world problems of global warming and the failed US foreign policy.

Bruce Dixon is the editor of Black Agenda Report which bills itself as "The journal of African American political thought and action. In a recent op/ed piece Dixon wrote:

The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has become a media parade on its way to a coronation. Journalists and leading Democrats have done shockingly little to pin Obama down, to hold him specifically responsible for anything beyond his slogans of "yes we can" and "change we can believe in". Prominent Black Democrats, many ministers and the traditional Black leadership class are doing less than anybody to hold Obama accountable, peddling instead a supposed racial obligation among African Americans to support this second coming of Joshua and his campaign as "the movement" itself. What would holding Barack Obama accountable on war and peace, on social security, health care and other issues look like, and is it possible to hold a political "rock star" accountable at all?

and:

While researching a story on the Democratic Leadership Council for the internet magazine Black Commentator in April and May of 2003, I ran across the DLC's “100 to Watch” list for 2003, in which Barack Obama was prominently featured as one of the DLC's favorite “rising stars”. This was ominous news because the DLC was and still is the right wing's Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party.

The DLC exists to guarantee that wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign donations have more say in the Democratic party than do flesh and blood Democratic voters. The DLC achieves this by closely examining and questioning the records, the policy stands and the persons of officeholders and candidates to ensure that they are safe and worthy recipients of elite largesse. The DLC also supplies them with right wing policy advisers beholden to those same interests, and hooks up approved candidates with the big money donors.

Then as now, the DLC favors bigger military budgets and more imperial wars, wholesale privatization of government functions including social security, and in so-called “free trade” agreements like NAFTA which are actually investor rights agreements. Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.

Full story: http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php...9&Itemid=34

Dixon's piece on the corporatism of the DLC: http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html

[Ron Ecker]

According to a report in last week’s Sunday Times, the Republican Party are about to mount a smear campaign against Barack Obama in an attempt to make sure Hilliary Clinton gets the nomination.

I think it's already started. You may have missed this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=56626

Here is the latest on Sinclair's claims about Obama:

http://www.whitehouse.com/index.aspx

[John Simkin]

Contribution from A. J. Weberman:

Vicki Iseman is a lobbyist who was too close to McCain for the comfort of his staff. Vicki is linked to a rightwing Likud group that attempted to free Israeli MIAs held by Islamists. The now-defunct organization was known as The International Coalition for Missing Israeli Soldiers. The ICMIS website stated, "ICMIS is based in Jerusalem, and is funded exclusively by donations from concerned individuals who wish to support this humanitarian cause." None-the-less the intelligence community will often sponsor seemingly independent organizations as a means of providing cover for their agents or as a means of making negotiations with the enemy more palatable. Alyza Lewin was Vicki's partner at ICMIS. Alyza Lewin is a partner in the father and daughter law firm of Lewin and Lewin. There is no doubt that her father, Nathan Lewin, is plugged into the Israeli espionage network operating in the United States, despite his Department of Justice bona fides. A June 1985 article by Max Holland in The Nation alleged... “for the past seven years, Stephen Bryen has had the threat of prosecution hanging over him. He is alleged to have leaked government documents to the Israelis, and whenever the issue seems to have gone away, like herpes it breaks out Bryen obtains a lawyer, Nathan Lewin, and the case heads for the grand jury, but is mysteriously dropped. Bryen later goes to work for Richard Perle.” Lewin later became AIPAC's lawyer and according to Eli Lake in the New York Sun “Heard the highly classified case against [two AIPAC employees] and advised the organization to sever its relationship with the two. The charges against Rosen and Weissman, which have yet to be made publicly, were so secret that Mr. Lewin needed security clearance just to hear them."

http://www.nysun.com/article/14225

Nathan Lewin wrote: “Studies of Palestinian suicide bombers and of those who, knowing their death was imminent, carried out the September 11th horror indicate that most were closely knit to their families - to parents, brothers, and sisters. Indeed, these family members routinely give press briefings extolling the suicide killers, and they are the recipients of financial bounties from supportive Muslim charities and governmental organizations. What if Israel and the United States announced that henceforth the perpetrators of all suicide attacks would be treated as if they had brought their parents and brothers and sisters with them to the site of the explosion? Suicide killers should know that they will take the lives of not only themselves and the many people they don’t know (but nonetheless hate) in the crowd that surrounds them when they squeeze the button that detonates their bomb, but also the lives of their parents, brothers, and sisters.”

Other members of ICMIS with intelligence community connections include the administrative director of the coalition Brigitte Silverberg who worked with Yona Baumel. Brigitte stated, "Yona Baumel may look like a congenial granddad, but this man has connections to former KGB intelligence agents and all kinds of shady and shadowy sources in the Arab world.”

http://www.mia.org.il/archive/020614jp.html

Iseman also worked with Mr. Daniel Grisaru whose bio stated, "Daniel Grisaru has significant experience in media, communications, public relations, non profits and government. Most recently, he served as the International Coalition for Missing Israeli soldiers Chief Communications Officer where he established himself as a key player in building the right connections with the leading military and governmental personalities, foreign governments, Embassies in Israel, Jewish and Christian non profit organizations. Professional public affairs analyst, strategist and lobbyist for more than 12 years. Communications advisor for Likud Knesset candidates & candidates for positions in the Municipal governments, Jewish Agency, & the JNF Spokesperson for the Israeli Bio Tech industry, healthcare and medical research clients working for the Foreign Press and in Israeli Home Land Security and Military national corporations and international corporations."

http://www.ypr.co.il/en/about-us.html

Something smells bad about someone this pro-Israel, someone who might put the interests of Israel above those of the United States trying to seduce a United States Senator. Either that or Vicki mistook McCain's dick for a mezuzah and tried to kiss it.

[John Simkin]

I have just been listening to Samantha Power, Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor, being interviewed on the BBC. She was very impressive. He will not go far wrong if he gives her a senior post in his government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

http://www.blogger.com/profile/05314504138452855865

[John Simkin]

It seems that Hillary Clinton’s television campaign against Barack Obama was successful. The “red phone” TV advert was stolen from the one used by Ronald Reagan against Walter Mondale. Hillary keeps on arguing that she has national security experience. However, her only experience is of being the wife of a president who had to answer the “red phone”. Does this make Laura Bush qualified to be president? If she gets the nomination McCain will obviously use the “experience” issue against her.

Clinton also attacked Obama for his links to a slum landlord who is now on trial in Chicago. As this negative campaigning appeared to work, does Obama respond by probing into her Arkansas past and the sources of the Clinton’s current fortune? Why, for example, has Hillary refused to release her tax returns? Of course, if he does this, it will help McCain in his campaign.

I suspect the Iraq War was also a factor in Tuesday’s results. In February 2007, only 30% of US voters thought the military effort in Iraq was going well. The latest poll suggests this figure has now increased to 48%. A majority now believe the US effort in Iraq will succeed.

Although the US is no nearer winning the war in Iraq than it was from the initial invasion, perception is everything. Psychologically, the American people want to believe that success is near, while this is the case, Obama will struggle to be elected as president.

[Jack White]

The latest making the internet rounds is this photo of Obama and his potential "first family".

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It seems that Hillary Clinton’s television campaign against Barack Obama was successful.

Just a few weeks ago Hilary had a 20 percent lead in the polls, yet she won Ohio by barely 10% and Texas by only 2%. Hilary netted just a few delegates, and barely dented Obama's lead in the popular vote nationwide.

The perception that momentum has somehow swung towards Hilary is just the media swallowing the Clinton Kool-Aid.

Not everyone is fooled, however. As Newsweek points out, Hilary's wins in Texas and Ohio leave her even less likely to win the delegate race than she was after Obama's win in Wisconsin.

The Superdelegates know that too, and the primal fear among top Democrats is that any indication that the rules are bent to hurt Obama will alienate the young. Young voters are the key to McCain's downfall, and the Dems need every last one.

Obama's long string of victories, from sea to shining sea, cannot be wiped out. The only options that allow Hillary to win (barring a miracle) all involve doing things which will appear to be chicanery, and they all involve getting Nancy Pelosi to play along with the chicanery.

Nancy is a lovely lady in my book, and MADAM SPEAKER is the real FIRST LADY OF WASHINGTON.

With Barak in the White House, she could really shine.

Can anyone think of a reason why Nancy should get her hands dirty, and risk her reputation, just to help Hilary?

And the beauty of it is, when 'Nancy's delicate boot hits Hillary's ample posterior, no one will accuse her of being a male chauvanist.

Although the US is no nearer winning the war in Iraq than it was from the initial invasion, perception is everything. Psychologically, the American people want to believe that success is near, while this is the case, Obama will struggle to be elected as president.

From Hilary's point of view the less voters hear about Iraq the better, but I can hear the Superdelegates rumbling. Iraq is a THREE TRILLION DOLLAR tar baby that our grandchildren will still be paying for, and both Hilary and mCcAIN are implicated. oBAMA HAS CLEAN HANDS while Hilary's hands are dripping blood, just like McCain's.

As reality sets in, Hilary is now talking about a split ticket.

"In your dreams", says the bold Barack.

[John Simkin]

Ray, thank you for your perceptive analysis. I hope you are right. In Europe we are desperate for a Barack Obama victory. As the author Martin Amiss said recently, it will allow Europeans to start loving America again.